Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Ms. Kanimozhi Karunanidhi D/o. Mr. M. Karunanidhi - Applicant
Versus
Thiru. P. Varadarajan Director & Publisher, Kumudam Group Magazines, Kumudam Publications Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
Original Application No. 871 of 2014 and Application No. 6297 of 2015 in CS No. 705 of 2014
Decided On : 16-05-2018
For the Applicant : Mr. P. Wilson, M/s. P. Wilson Associates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Parasaran, Mr. R. Parthasarathy and Mr. Rahul Balaji.
The judgment established the right to privacy as a fundamental right and emphasized the need to protect personal intimacies, family life, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing, and education. It also highlighted the limitations on the freedom of expression, stating that not all matters in which the public is interested may be in the public interest.
Headnote:
Defamation - Right to Privacy - Article 19(1)(a) - 21 - 25 - The court balanced the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech and expression enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The judgment recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right and emphasized the need to protect personal intimacies, family life, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing, and education. The court also highlighted the limitations on the freedom of expression, stating that not all matters in which the public is interested may be in the public interest. The judgment imposed restrictions on the publication of private matters without the consent of the individual and required the media to seek the individual's response before publishing such articles.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a prominent political leader, sought an injunction against the defendants for continuously publishing defamatory articles about her and her family members in their magazine. The defendants claimed that the articles were in public interest and fell within their right to freedom of speech and expression.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right and balanced it with the right to freedom of speech and expression. It concluded that while there cannot be a blanket injunction, the defendants cannot publish anything and everything in the guise of public interest. The court allowed the plaintiff's application, subject to conditions restricting the publication of private matters without the plaintiff's consent.
Issues: The main issue was to balance the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech and expression in the context of the publication of defamatory articles about a public figure and her family members.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established the need to protect personal intimacies, family life, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing, and education as part of the right to privacy. It emphasized that not all matters in which the public is interested may be in the public interest and imposed restrictions on the publication of private matters without the individual's consent.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for injunction, subject to conditions restricting the publication of private matters without the plaintiff's consent. The vacate injunction petition was dismissed.
Original Application No. 871 of 2014 has been filed by the plaintiff in CS No.705 of 2014 seeking an order of ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their men, agents, staff, subordinates or any person claiming through or on behalf of them in any way printing, publishing and circulating the defamatory article, sketch/photograph/ caricature/fudging or any pictoral representation of the Applicant/plaintiff in their magazine “Kumudam Reporter” or in any manner causing damage to the reputation of the Applicant/Plaintiff without seeking prior clarification from the applicant/plaintiff.
2. The suit in CS No.705 of 2014 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff seeking damages for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the defendant, therein for the alleged defamation/loss of reputation caused by the defendants by their conduct in publishing various incriminating articles about the plaintiff and her family members and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner publishing and circulating the defamatory article, sketch/photograph/caricature/fudging or any pictoral representation of the plaintiff in their magazine “Kumudam Reporter” or in any manner causing damage to the reputation of the Plaintiff without seeking prior clarification from the plaintiff.
3. According to the applicant/plaintiff, she is the daughter of former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu and she is a duly elected Member of the Parliament in the Rajya Sabha for two consecutive terms. She had contributed to several Parliamentary Committees during her seven years as a Member of the Upper House of the Parliament. She is also a prominent leader of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, a major political party in the State of Tamil Nadu. She is also a vibrant social worker and in view of her tireless effort, she has earned a reputation as the prominent political leader. Applicant/Plaintiff would also claim that she is an author recognized in the literacy circles for her various works in Tamil Literature. Many of her works have been translated into English and several other languages. In short, the plaintiff would claim that she is a prominent and respected political leader in the State.
4. It is claimed that the respondents, who are associated with the Tamil bi-weekly magazine called “Kumudam Reporter” in various capacities like Director and Publisher, Group Editor, Joint Editor, News Editor, Assistant Editor, etc. have with a malicious intention of damaging her reputation are habitually engaging themselves in publication of highly defamatory and baseless News articles against the applicant as well as the other leaders belonging to the political party, to which the applicant is also attached. The applicant/plaintiff would further complain that in the issue of the “Kumudam Reporter magazine dated 31.07.2014, the defendants had printed and published a malicious and mischievous article with a sub title xxxxx. The said article was published under the style of a conversation between a fictitious character called Swami Vambaanandha and his disciple. Contending that the contents of the article which reads as if it is a fiction, are concocted, fanciful, mischievous, derogatory and defamatory apart from being a bundle of lies, the applicant/plaintiff would claim that the publication of the article is only to project the plaintiff and the political party to which she is attached, viz., the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, in bad light in the eyes of the public and to impute certain motives to the applicant/plaintiff, which according to her are baseless and false. It is claimed by the applicant/plaintiff that the article has been published only with a malicious intention to defame the plaintiff.
5. The applicant/plaintiff would further contend that in the second part of the article the respondents have claimed that the applicant is actively planting news items in various Media, against her own brother Thiru.M.K.Stalin, who is working President of the Drav
